Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it discloses the screening components, the return values (ok, caution, block with plain reasons), a key limitation ('Rules-based, not legal advice'), and the cost ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402). It does not cover rate limits, latency, or failure modes, but for a paid screening tool this is a strong disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core question and then packs useful details efficiently. It is slightly dense and could be split for readability, but every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, its limitations, cost, and the alternative. Missing details like the threshold for 'recent large transfers' or how wallet age is computed are minor for an agent deciding to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the chain enum and expect enum. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the general framing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is fully documented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific question ('Is it safe to pay this address?') and then precisely lists what the check covers: OFAC SDN, wallet age, EOA vs contract, first funder, recent large transfers across multiple chains, plus Solana wallet kind/activity. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the 'address-only version' of /check and notes 'No token score (use /check for that)', making the sibling relationship clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The opening question implies the primary use case (pre-payment safety check). The description explicitly names the alternative ('use /check for that') when a token score is needed, and clarifies this version is address-only. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use and when-to-use-the-other-tool signal.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.